To some, it's simply a matter of enforcing the law.

To others, it's a desperate attempt at self-preservation.

To still others, it's just another example of judicial ego and arrogance.

Whatever the motives, the Allen County Courthouse has for the past two months provided the stage for a not-so-funny farce that could be called “Judges Behaving Badly” - a performance that probably never should have opened in the first place.

Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards probably didn't know what she was starting early this year when a review of Indiana law persuaded her that cases involving the seizure of money and other goods linked to illegal behavior - about 200 a year - should be filed as criminal cases in Allen Superior Court, not as civil cases as had been the practice. But her seemingly inconsequential decision ignited a behind-the-scenes skirmish between civil and criminal judges that put Clerk Therese Brown in the middle of a verbal crossfire highlighted by a series of e-mails not entirely consistent with normal judicial restraint and decorum.

In an April letter to Randall Shepard, chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, Brown explained her Catch-22: Civil Administrative Judge Nancy Boyer and Criminal Administrative Judge Fran Gull had both directed her to file the cases in their respective courts. What should she do?

On May 13, Supreme Court Executive Director Lilia Judson wrote back to say that, although the law is indeed murky, the cases in question should be filed civilly. Acknowledging that “this is not my forte,” Brown asked the judges and others for their opinion.

End of the story? The 75 contested case files on Brown's desk this week suggest otherwise - a legal limbo that has heated up the courthouse e-mail system.

“If you have difficulty understanding what … Judson has determined … I would respectfully suggest that you simply telephone (her) and I'm certain her answer will be easy to follow,” Civil Judge Dan Heath wrote Brown. “At some point you have to follow the law … You now have the appropriate cover and should begin to act accordingly.”

Criminal Judge Ken Scheibenberger shot back: “Why must you display such arrogance?”

“I personally take offense you would depict me that way. My comments may be the result of exasperation, but not arrogance. We have been extremely patient,” Heath replied.

To which Levine added in an e-mail to Brown: “You are correct that this is not your ‘forte,' nor is it within the purview of your duties to seek the concurrence of the judges … to implement what the Supreme Court has determined … It was you who wrote (the Indiana Supreme Court) to address a problem, and you have received an answer.

“Notwithstanding all of the above, I want you to know that I personally have the utmost appreciation for the work that you and your staff do.”

To which the obvious question is: Why would control of a relative handful of mostly minor cases generate such responses from people trained to be dispassionate?

Because it's the law, Boyer and Levine said. “Civil cases should be filed in civil court. I wouldn't tell criminal judges how to do their job and I would hope they wouldn't tell us how to do ours,” Levine added.

“It's irrelevant to us. We'll hear whatever we're supposed to hear. There are no caseload issues with us. We have plenty of work to do,” said Criminal Judge John Surbeck.


We have plenty of work to do. Although Surbeck said he meant nothing by the statement, many courthouse insiders believe judges' caseloads - or lack of them - explain everything.

Under guidelines developed by the Indiana Judicial Administrative Committee, the workloads of Hoosier judges are assigned “weighted caseload measures” determined by the types of cases filed in each judge's court. Types of cases deemed more time-consuming are assigned the highest numbers, theoretically indicating which judges are the busiest. The average workload is assigned a “1” rating - the work a single judge should be expected to handle. The ratings reflect each court's caseload divided by the number of judges and magistrates.

Gull and several others suggested that civil judges' caseloads are down, prompting the judges to fight for every available case.

“There's no sinister plot here,” Levine said.

“Those (disputed) cases would have only an infinitesimal impact (on the judicial ratings),” Boyer added.

At first glance, the ratings themselves appear to support Levine and Boyer. According to 2008 statistics, all nine Allen Superior judges earned ratings above “1,” with the four civil judges averaging about 1.15 and the five criminal judges averaging 1.33. Higher, yes, but not that much higher.

But remember: These forfeiture cases weren't moved to criminal court until this year, meaning the 2008 civil figures include the types of cases now in dispute.

So even though these cases are likely to end up in civil court, I can't say for sure which side has the better argument. I can say for sure that the administration of justice in Allen County is not being well-served when judges, clerks, prosecutors and others are sniping at each other.

Gull said the in-house sniping has been “distressing. But the public probably couldn't care less.”

Maybe not. But it should.